On President Bush"s Terrorist Surveillance Program
Senate hearings on the National Security Agency (NSA) program is scheduled to begin Feb.
6, about a "coincidence" which is related to The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which created courts that act quickly and secretly to approve such requests for wiretaps, remains a sensible law.
It strikes the proper balance between the need for judicial oversight and the requirements of national security and it helps to ensure that the government does not trample on individual liberty.
Democrats and some Republicans question the legality of Bush's decision, taken after the September 11 attacks, to authorize eavesdropping without court approval if one of the parties on the call was suspected of links to terrorism.
Media called it the "domestic spying program.
" And the White House called it the "terrorist surveillance program.
" because one party relates to outside of United States.
Did the President break the law? Did the President have a power to authorize? These questions are boiled down to one answer-- Are these two programs the same or difference? If the same, President is guilty as charged.
If the difference, President's case is prevailed.
The approval of such complicated case required logical implication, semantic clarification, pragmatic consideration and Americans' perception.
Logical implication.
Logic gives you rules of thinking and gets the same result every time and no exception.
According to Aristotle Syllogism, I set up the propositional argument.
All eavesdropping cases without court approval are breaking the law Domestic spying program is eavesdropping case without court approval Domestic spying program is breaking the law The answer of the terrorists surveillance program will be the same.
However, this is only affirmation.
For example, the reverse "All law breaking cases are eavesdropping without court approval.
" is doubtful because "Murder" is also law breaking case.
The negation of the minor premise is thus not the same.
"There is no eavesdropping, there is no domestic spying program.
" The answer is Yes because they are the one and the same.
However, "There is no eavesdropping, there is no terrorist surveillance program.
The answer is No because they are different, eavesdropping exists, it does not matter it is employed by the terrorist surveillance program or not.
In other words, not all eavesdropping cases involve the Act of 1978.
Therefore, it is very hard to determine truth or false in terms of deductive method.
There are, four ways' truths in inductive method.
I use 'sex' to explain its differences.
Yes, No, (heterosexual.
Regular deductive method) Both Yes and No (homosexual) Either Yes or No (bisexual) Neither Yes nor No (neuter) The terrorist surveillance program is the case of "Either Yes or No," because , on one side, it does apply eavesdropping method, on the other side, it is not a domestic spying, rather it is spying terrorists that related to a domestic person or persons.
The Middle Term is not the same.
If eavesdropping is a minor premise as in the negation of the terrorist surveillance program then this program is the case of "Neither Yes nor No.
" It is simply an independent program.
Semantic clarification.
If you have the problem with logic, the linguistic term applies to clarify the difference.
For example, the apple is a fruit, the orange is a fruit but apple is not orange.
Apple and orange have the same super ordinary form "fruit" linguistically.
By the same token, the "domestic spying program" and the "terrorist surveillance program" have the same eavesdropping acts, but two distinguish programs.
A closer example, I have learned from the course Child Language Acquisition in Psycholinguistics at college.
The child calls a deer "horse" because he thinks that all four legs' animals are named horse.
Not until he grows up to five years old then he can differentiate animal types.
By now, I hope the people who disagree with President's interpretation of the terrorists surveillance program have learned this linguistic difference.
It is ridicules to treat all cases of eavesdropping referring to Act of 1978 no matter what the nature it is.
Pragmatic consideration.
Spying is number one priority in the war.
You must know what you have gotten and what your enemies have gotten, then you can win the war.
Without spying means you don't know what your enemies have gotten.
You are completely blind and deaf.
What is going to happen if you send blind soldiers into the battle field? If we hire local informants in Iraq to spy for us, we will not have so many troopers get hurt by roadside bombs and ABC anchor man Bob Wardrobe will not be in the hospital today.
Needless to say, the terrorist surveillance program was approved by the Attorney General and had briefed to the Congressional leadership.
President says he got congressional authorization "to use all necessary force" in response to the terrorist attacks.
Spying is a vital tool.
If you put the terrorist surveillance program into the frame work of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, you just cut your toes to fit small shoes.
What your loss is more than what you gain because you may gain a temporary liberty but lose lives instead.
Americans' perception.
According to ABC poll, President's proofreading about this matter, disapproval was 76% and approval was only 39%.
However, the same poll also asked which is priority? Private act of civil liberty or the terrorist surveillance program.
Americans overwhelmingly pointed out that the terrorist surveillance is in priority.
This indicates what Americans have protested against is not President Bush in particular, rather the domestic spying program in general.
It really makes no difference who is the president.
Even President himself said he would be very careful to treat about individual liberty.
Here the President and American people have the consensus that the terrorist surveillance is a needed tool to defense America in the war time.
We all know we need a drastic measure when we are in anomaly time.
In conclusion, the "terrorist surveillance program" just coincides with The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 because of eavesdropping action.
Actually they are completely different, I have already proven in terms of logic, linguistics, pragmatic and Americans' viewpoint.
Therefore, President has an authorization, did not break the law because there is no law to prohibit for terrorist surveillance, to perform the eavesdropping.
We cannot stop eating just because we have been chocked.
Eavesdropping may have a "chock" factor but we cannot do without it.
The White House stuff busily defended the President according to the accused questions and forgot to answer that this is a new program that has nothing to do with Act of 1978.
That is that.
Period.
"I don't think the national security attack works this time because we have a politically weakened president whose poll numbers are down and whose credibility is under increased scrutiny" said by Minority Leader Harry M.
Reid (D-Nev.
).
I am not so sure he is right because Americans love President Bush dearly and do not want to see him got beat up.
He just makes gas price lower for a few weeks, Americans got that Congressman Murtha off his back.
The poll showed that Americans followed the President's lead and wanted the troops to stay in Iraq to finish the job.
The poor may not have times to watch TV or listen to the radio but they need to buy gasoline for work every day.
Low price sounds loud and clear that the President is helping them.
I don't mean the President should bribe American people, rather he was elected to do such a job and should get rewards if he is doing well.
Democrats should quit clowning around to filibuster judge Alito, instead present a serious issue as "how to reduce the gas price?" If Democrats can solve this problem, I guarantee they can win midterm election this year and presidential election in 2008.
Can't they?
6, about a "coincidence" which is related to The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which created courts that act quickly and secretly to approve such requests for wiretaps, remains a sensible law.
It strikes the proper balance between the need for judicial oversight and the requirements of national security and it helps to ensure that the government does not trample on individual liberty.
Democrats and some Republicans question the legality of Bush's decision, taken after the September 11 attacks, to authorize eavesdropping without court approval if one of the parties on the call was suspected of links to terrorism.
Media called it the "domestic spying program.
" And the White House called it the "terrorist surveillance program.
" because one party relates to outside of United States.
Did the President break the law? Did the President have a power to authorize? These questions are boiled down to one answer-- Are these two programs the same or difference? If the same, President is guilty as charged.
If the difference, President's case is prevailed.
The approval of such complicated case required logical implication, semantic clarification, pragmatic consideration and Americans' perception.
Logical implication.
Logic gives you rules of thinking and gets the same result every time and no exception.
According to Aristotle Syllogism, I set up the propositional argument.
However, this is only affirmation.
For example, the reverse "All law breaking cases are eavesdropping without court approval.
" is doubtful because "Murder" is also law breaking case.
The negation of the minor premise is thus not the same.
"There is no eavesdropping, there is no domestic spying program.
" The answer is Yes because they are the one and the same.
However, "There is no eavesdropping, there is no terrorist surveillance program.
The answer is No because they are different, eavesdropping exists, it does not matter it is employed by the terrorist surveillance program or not.
In other words, not all eavesdropping cases involve the Act of 1978.
Therefore, it is very hard to determine truth or false in terms of deductive method.
There are, four ways' truths in inductive method.
I use 'sex' to explain its differences.
Regular deductive method)
The Middle Term is not the same.
If eavesdropping is a minor premise as in the negation of the terrorist surveillance program then this program is the case of "Neither Yes nor No.
" It is simply an independent program.
Semantic clarification.
If you have the problem with logic, the linguistic term applies to clarify the difference.
For example, the apple is a fruit, the orange is a fruit but apple is not orange.
Apple and orange have the same super ordinary form "fruit" linguistically.
By the same token, the "domestic spying program" and the "terrorist surveillance program" have the same eavesdropping acts, but two distinguish programs.
A closer example, I have learned from the course Child Language Acquisition in Psycholinguistics at college.
The child calls a deer "horse" because he thinks that all four legs' animals are named horse.
Not until he grows up to five years old then he can differentiate animal types.
By now, I hope the people who disagree with President's interpretation of the terrorists surveillance program have learned this linguistic difference.
It is ridicules to treat all cases of eavesdropping referring to Act of 1978 no matter what the nature it is.
Pragmatic consideration.
Spying is number one priority in the war.
You must know what you have gotten and what your enemies have gotten, then you can win the war.
Without spying means you don't know what your enemies have gotten.
You are completely blind and deaf.
What is going to happen if you send blind soldiers into the battle field? If we hire local informants in Iraq to spy for us, we will not have so many troopers get hurt by roadside bombs and ABC anchor man Bob Wardrobe will not be in the hospital today.
Needless to say, the terrorist surveillance program was approved by the Attorney General and had briefed to the Congressional leadership.
President says he got congressional authorization "to use all necessary force" in response to the terrorist attacks.
Spying is a vital tool.
If you put the terrorist surveillance program into the frame work of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, you just cut your toes to fit small shoes.
What your loss is more than what you gain because you may gain a temporary liberty but lose lives instead.
Americans' perception.
According to ABC poll, President's proofreading about this matter, disapproval was 76% and approval was only 39%.
However, the same poll also asked which is priority? Private act of civil liberty or the terrorist surveillance program.
Americans overwhelmingly pointed out that the terrorist surveillance is in priority.
This indicates what Americans have protested against is not President Bush in particular, rather the domestic spying program in general.
It really makes no difference who is the president.
Even President himself said he would be very careful to treat about individual liberty.
Here the President and American people have the consensus that the terrorist surveillance is a needed tool to defense America in the war time.
We all know we need a drastic measure when we are in anomaly time.
In conclusion, the "terrorist surveillance program" just coincides with The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 because of eavesdropping action.
Actually they are completely different, I have already proven in terms of logic, linguistics, pragmatic and Americans' viewpoint.
Therefore, President has an authorization, did not break the law because there is no law to prohibit for terrorist surveillance, to perform the eavesdropping.
We cannot stop eating just because we have been chocked.
Eavesdropping may have a "chock" factor but we cannot do without it.
The White House stuff busily defended the President according to the accused questions and forgot to answer that this is a new program that has nothing to do with Act of 1978.
That is that.
Period.
"I don't think the national security attack works this time because we have a politically weakened president whose poll numbers are down and whose credibility is under increased scrutiny" said by Minority Leader Harry M.
Reid (D-Nev.
).
I am not so sure he is right because Americans love President Bush dearly and do not want to see him got beat up.
He just makes gas price lower for a few weeks, Americans got that Congressman Murtha off his back.
The poll showed that Americans followed the President's lead and wanted the troops to stay in Iraq to finish the job.
The poor may not have times to watch TV or listen to the radio but they need to buy gasoline for work every day.
Low price sounds loud and clear that the President is helping them.
I don't mean the President should bribe American people, rather he was elected to do such a job and should get rewards if he is doing well.
Democrats should quit clowning around to filibuster judge Alito, instead present a serious issue as "how to reduce the gas price?" If Democrats can solve this problem, I guarantee they can win midterm election this year and presidential election in 2008.
Can't they?
Source...